Apparently there’s an issue with some instances banning users for criticizing authoritarian governments. Is lemmy.world a safe place to criticize governments?

  • nivenkos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    Keep it in the politics subs.

    But I hope there is less censorship, it was a shame that lemmy.ml removed this well-sourced comment (and banned the user) -

    • Amby@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You couldn’t have cherry-picked a more inflammatory comment to defend. Truly such a shame that people who misrepresent data for the sake of their anti-trans stances have their obvious rage-bait posts removed.

      • harbo@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is rage-baiting especially if they use data to do it.”

      • Kresten@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        34
        ·
        1 year ago

        How is writing a high-effort long comment explaining one’s viewpoints, with sources to back up the opinion-- ragebait? Ragebait is low-effort content that only seeks to troll.

          • Kresten@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            1 year ago

            You gotta admit, that it’s way too much effort to troll?

            He could’ve said something simple, and it would’ve received the same reaction.

            • Amby@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              33
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t really feel like explaining what bad-faith arguments are to someone who’s clearly concern trolling so I’ll just leave it at that.

          • harbo@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            43
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The post you’re replying to is very well thought out, and you’re just saying that they’re “misrepresenting data.” Please be more specific than that, because right now you are not very convincing and they are.

            Edit: I am positive this thread is being brigaded now, probably with alt accounts from this Amby person. They get upvoted in waves, not gradually like how everyone else has been. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

            • Amby@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              39
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t really feel compelled to engage with such a bad-faith argument but i’ll humor you a bit.

              In all my research I couldn’t find a single study, anywhere, demonstrating an objective quality of life improvement. These would be measurable metrics like: * Life expectance. ** * suicide rate.** * …

              They ask subjects how they feel about suicide. This is an effective proxy for, “are you happy with the major medical procedure you just asked for?” Unsurprisingly, this is subject to enormous bias. Instead I found evidence that *not* transitioning is a much better, much more effective treatment for children.

              Followed by 2 links that… don’t talk about suicidal ideation but instead about no longer feeling dysphoric.

              And then the poster goes on to claim that somehow this reduces suicidal ideation in children who may be trans. This entire section does nothing to address the fact that reaffirming a trans child’s gender does, in fact reduce suicidal ideation in trans children. Obviously If a child isn’t trans, they won’t feel suicidal if they’re not allowed to transition.

              Just because a thought is well worded and lengthy, does not mean it’s worth listening to.

              • nivenkos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                18
                ·
                1 year ago

                But just because you don’t think it’s worth listening to, doesn’t mean it should be banned.

                Ban outright spammers and attackers like this - https://lemmy.world/u/darknightfggot (I don’t know if his posts are still visible, I blocked him) but don’t try to ban ideas just for apparent wrongthink.

                • thoro@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  22
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If the comment was about “black people causing the most crime in the US”, would you think it’s worth listening to? Something having citations and being written in a “civil” tone does not necessarily mean it’s high level discourse.

                  Some people hear dog whistles. Some don’t.

                  • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If the comment was about “black people causing the most crime in the US”, would you think it’s worth listening to?

                    If they had facts and hard data to back it up, it would at least be worth discussing.

                    The problem is too many have opinions based on feelings, and feelings are not stable or permanent … they can change from moment to moment, hour by hour and day by day.

                    Something having citations and being written in a “civil” tone does not necessarily mean it’s high level discourse.

                    In your opinion … unless you have facts/data to back that up.

                • Amby@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  24
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “white collar” or “clean” bigotry is still bigotry. Someone doesn’t need to shout slurs at every possible moment to spread hate and attack people’s identitie s or rights to exist.

                  Bigotry does not need to be tolerated full stop. It doesn’t matter how much someone dresses it up to appear palatable or how much someone claims they’re “just asking questions/just want a respectful debate” when the topic is someone’s immutable identity and right to medical treatment.

                  • grizzly_dw@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    20
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t want to participate in this conversation, but I want to leave a note for any people who may be casually scrolling this thread, reading the exchange, and wondering how you feel about it.

                    You are witnessing, in real time, a technique that has been popularized by alt-right influencers like Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowder as a means to be racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc online and then play the victim when people get mad about it.

                    The first step is to post something that at first glance seems rational, logical, and supported by facts, which portrays a particular minority group in a bad way. There are lots of these kinds of “arguments” available all over the web, and I’m willing to bet the “well thought out” comment that got the above user banned was mostly copy/pasted. It’s similar to the “despite making up X% of the population, black people cause Y% of crime” thing you see posted from time to time, as @thoro@lemmy.ml mentioned. They often use real facts and data, but typically skewed or taken out of context to push a particular agenda.

                    The next step is ideally to have someone from that minority group get mad and call them a bad word. Then they can sit back, sip their tea, and say, “See? I told you that gays/jews/trans/blacks/whatever are the REAL bigots! I’m just trying to have a conversation and they start calling me names and banning me.”

                    In cases like this, where @Amby@lemmy.blahaj.zone is attempting to call them out in a civil tone, they play the “you’re just mad because you don’t agree” card. Or the “you didn’t provide a master’s thesis counterargument” card. Or the “I never actually said a slur so how is it hate speech” card. No matter what you say to them, no matter how you try to approach the “argument”, they will twist it around so that you are wrong. They’ll keep doing it until you finally lose your cool, which goes back to the first step.

                    In the worst case, no one takes the bait and they get ignored. But even this is still a win, because it means they get to spread their hateful propaganda freely. And a lot of times there will be casual onlookers, with no strong feelings about the matter, who see the exchange and think, “Hmm, that person is being civil and reasonable and all these pro-trans people are getting angry and calling them names. Maybe they’re right, and trans people ARE all mentally unstable. I’m going to save their ‘well thought out’ comment for later.” And so it spreads.

                    Call it gaslighting, call it trolling, it doesn’t matter. Think of it like this. Imagine two young brothers riding in the back seat on the way to Disneyland. The older brother is tormenting the younger brother by poking him constantly. “Mom! He’s poking me!” says the younger. “Stop poking your brother” says the mom. So what does the older brother do? He puts his finger right in front of the younger brother’s face. Not quite touching him, but close enough to be extremely annoying. “Mom, he’s still bothering me!” says the younger. “No, I’m not actually touching him” says the older, laughing. Finally, the mom has had enough. She turns the car around and says the trip to Disney is cancelled. The older brother, now furious, points at the younger brother: “LOOK WHAT YOU DID!”

                    The exchange you’re looking at is basically the grown-up version of the big brother in the backseat. They don’t want to have a discussion. They don’t even want to argue. They just want to piss of whichever minority group they hate, without technically breaking any rules (“I’m not actually touching you!”). And then, if they do get banned, they move on to the next space and say “Those out-of-control gays/jews/trans/blacks/whatever banned me from the last forum, but I’m sure THIS forum actually supports free speech and honest discussion. Did you know that despite making up X% of the population…”

                    Unfortunately, the best thing you can do is ignore them and hope the moderaters clean them out. It becomes a problem on big sites like reddit where mods are already swamped with thousands of other issues. But hopefully in the federated world, communities will mostly stay small enough to be manageable.

                • Cassilda@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If you want to be free to post bigotry as long as you use polite-sounding language and write long posts, Reddit and HN will be glad to have you.

            • thoro@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              28
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s not alt accounts. The base users of Lemmy platform as a whole ( pre blackout lemmy.ml, et al) do not want to see cherry picked, anecdotal, transphobic concern trolling disguised as civility

            • Cassilda@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not alt accounts; you just wandered into the wrong bar to go picking fights with communists and trans people.

            • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What did you think was going to happen if you defend anti-trans activism in a community where the majority of people support trans rights? It’s about time for you to have a reality check.

    • Kresten@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow, that’s insane. How is the discourse going to be going forward if high effort replies like that one get removed and gets the user banned

      • Edgerunner Alexis@dataterm.digital
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It isn’t high effort. It’s a bunch of canned “gender critical” arguments that we’ve all seen a thousand times before combined with arbitrarily dismissing all of the evidence in favor of gender affirming care for kids using specious reasoning and then citing long debunked studies like the “80% desistance rate” one.

        Their bias is even more clearly demonstrated by the fact that the first study they cite isn’t hosted on any legitimate source of medical science, but on “transgendertrend.” That demonstrates that they didn’t find their data via PubMed or Google Scholar or anything, they found it by looking for cherry picked medical studies from people with an anti-trans agenda.

        It’s transphobia and perpetuation of misinformation disguised as a polite conversation. It’s the same level of “discourse” as “blacks make up 12% of the population and commit 50% of the crime.”

        Edit: not only is it arbitrary and awfully convenient for cherry-picking purposes to leave out longitudinal studies of mental health, since mental health is what’s at stake here, and “objective” measures are susceptible to many confounding variables and often not relevant, and standardized tests of mental health are regularly used to ascertain the efficacy of many procedures related to psychology, there are also studies that use “objective” measures such as the ones he wanted, where applicable. Here’s one that’s somewhat infamous due to one of the young adults getting a fatal complication from a surgery, but such surgeries are not performed on minors, and are not particularly dangerous, so it’s largely irrelevant: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25201798/. Here’s a list of 16 studies on this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202201/the-evidence-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care.